Do you get annoyed when people who don’t know anything about climatology nonetheless go out of their way to lecture you on the subject? (One particularly obnoxious writer at The New York Times comes to mind.) Well, I don’t know anything about the subject and I won’t lecture you. I’ll just report the latest from the experts:

Despite a continued rise in greenhouse gases, the earth’s has not warmed over the past 16 years― a phenomenon that is inconsistent with all known climate models.

The IPCC (the source of global warming alarmism) has had to lower its estimated temperature rise once again and is now predicting only a 1 C degree increase by 2025.

Comments (13)

I still believe that as humans we are having some effect on the environment, which some day may slightly affect climate change but perhaps nothing significant enough to be alarming as sensationalists make you want to believe. It’s never easy to know who to believe when you have scientists on both ends contending differing data, but we ought to be mindful of our planet and what is or is not affecting it.

A 1C increase is till very important when you consider the loss of productivity that accompanies that increase. As the average temperature rises, heat-related injuries, from heat rash to heat stroke and death, become more common and mean that field workers and those who work outside must rest more each hour to ensure they are healthy.

I’m a strong believer that people’s behavior plays a very important role in this situation. We don’t see any immediate effects to what we do, which is why the majority of people these days don’t really bother to watch their role in pollution or whatever they do that might speed up this process. This is a slowly-but-surely kind of phenomenon, and years from now, our future generations will see the consequences of what’s happening today. I’m sure of that.

In a place like Texas, where you get extreme hot temperatures during summer and extreme cold temperatures during winter is hard to tell the effects of global warming. This is an interesting phenomenon for sure.

I’m not an economist, and I agree with their “take it slow” approach. Not only for the resources that could be saved until they can be used more wisely expecting more accurate outcomes, but for the guarantee that what we do now would actually have a positive impact later. We hear differing opinions all the time from experts and scientists, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable acting against or trying to prevent something that I don’t know if it’s even there, or maybe it is but not as bad as some say it is.

When it comes to global warming, some of these findings can be very misleading. How are we supposed to believe there’s an actual global warming problem if “the earth’s has not warmed over the past 16 years”, and the IPCC “had to lower its estimated temperature rise once again”? It’s just hard to understand, and it’s because of that that most people don’t care to know anything about it. Would you blame them?

In particular with regard to the link between solar effects and global warming, the article you cited is a total joke. The denialists took the a leaked early version of the IPCC report, took a single line out of context, and declared victory. The authors of that chapter were not amused. If you want to see what that chapter said when not cherry-picked by liars go right on ahead. Even the denialists have dropped this claim after they were shamed by the authors for their deception.

The global warming has been stopped for “16 years” nonsense is another classic cherry-pick. By choosing your date range carefully you can BS all sorts of non-existent trends or lack of trends. Again a pre-debunking of this nonsense claim that climate denialists tediously pull out about once a month.

You should always invite an economist. The last link, about taking it slow, I enjoyed greatly. We are sacrificing future wealth for future climate “apocalypse” prevention – without any knowledge on the rate of return.